On principles of vicarious liability, corporations are liable to pay damages for wrongs done by their officers or servants. They are liable even for tort requiring a mental element as an ingredient, e.g. malicious prosecution.
In India, local authorities like Municipalities and District Boards have been held responsible for the tort committed by their servants or officers.
The plaintiff was the owner of a house within the limits of Banaras Municipality. It was alleged that the house was not within the radius of 600 feet from the nearest stand-pipe nor had it got any water pipe connection.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Sometime in 1922, this house was assessed to water-tax. On receipt of a notice the plaintiff filed an objection praying exemption from water tax as his house was beyond the prescribed radius.
Image Source: cdn.shareyouressays.com
It appears that the Board took no action on his objection and it remained pending. On 19th May, 1934, a distress warrant was issued against the plaintiff and the officer deputed by the Board attached the plaintiff’s cattle and other movable properties.
The plaintiff filed a suit for Rs. 200/- as damages on account of illegal attachment. The Board was held liable and it was held that a Corporation is liable to be sued for any tort provided that-
ADVERTISEMENTS:
(i) It is a tort in respect of which an action would lie against a private individual;
(ii) The person by whom the tort is actually committed, is acting within the scope of his authority and in the course of his employment as agent of the Corporation; and
(iii) The act complained of is not one which the Corporation would not, in any circumstance, be authorised by its constitution to commit.
The defendant had employed a contractor to repair the road. In the course of doing the work, the contractor had stored up heaps of gravel along the road to a breadth of 9 feet in the roadway.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
No light had been put on the heaps so as to warm passers-by of their existence. The plaintiff, who rode on his motor-cycle came against the heaps and sustained personal injuries. He sued the municipality for damage. It was held that the municipality was liable.